I Hubble relation to Scale Factor

TheMercury79
Messages
24
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Comparing sizes now and then
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
How much smaller would such a Universe be 14 billion years ago compared to today?

Using the Hubble parameter in terms of scale factor: ##H(t) = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}## leads to
the differential equation: $$\frac{da}{dt}=a~H(t)$$
Solivng for the scale factor yields an exponential growth relation:$$a(t) = a(0)e^{Ht}$$

(##H(t) = H## since H is constant in this Universe and so it's not necessary to use the Hubble parameter
as a function of time)

If we use ##H = 70 kms^-1Mpc^-1##, current time ##t=14\times10^9~y## and initial time 14 Gy ago is ##t_0=0##, then$$\\$$
##Ht = 70~kms^{-1}~Mpc^{-1} * \frac{1}{3.09\times10^{19}}~Mpc~km^{-1} * (3600 * 24 *365.25 * 14\times10^9)~s##

This makes ##Ht## roughly equal to 1 and ##a(14)\approx a(0)e^1##
Therefore $$a(14)\approx 2.72a(0)$$

This, however, seems like a really small number, indicating the Universe was about one third of its current size
14 billion years ago for a "Constant Hubble Universe"
Also a value of 70 for the Hubble parameter corresponds to a Hubble time of 14 billion years. And if H(t) is constant then 14 billion years ago would have the same Hubble time of 14 billion years, it can't be one third of the current size and have the same Hubble time, shouldn't this Hubble time be zero 14 billion years ago?

Something(s) doesn't add upp in my approach and I'm trying to think of where I'm off
 
Space news on Phys.org
Well I think your beginning is wrong. You should derive the scale factor ##a(t)## from the Friedmann Equations. Not by using only $$H = \dot{a} / a$$.

From my knowledge, the only close thing that does look like your solution is universe with lambda only which has a scale factor of
$$a(t) = e^{H_0t}$$ however here $$H_0 = \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi G ε_Λ} {3c^2}} = \sqrt{Λ/3}$$

(Also called de Sitter universe)
 
  • Like
Likes TheMercury79
TheMercury79 said:
Imagine a Universe where the Hubble parameter is truly a constant, in both space and time.
##H = const## means that the universe is expanding exponentially. It's the case if the Cosmological Constant ##\Lambda > 0## and the matter density ##\rho = 0##, which is expected for the very far future of our universe.
 
  • Like
Likes TheMercury79
I feel kinda stupid now, The Friedmann equations is in the next chapter. I was under the impression this should be solved with contents of the current chapter. But I see now I've read the curriculum wrong.
I have a full time job and taking this course on the side is really stressful. I just knew I was totally off on this.
Tnx for answers.EDIT: Actually I see now I haven't read the curriculum wrong. It's just not very clear, one place says this and that chapter, another place it says only this chapter. Huh
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Arman777
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top